Volume 31 Number 1
October 1991

Jill LaBatte

The significance of creative/artistic expression in American Indian general and gifted curricula became apparent to me as a bilingual teacher on the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation in North Dakota. My ESL/Limited English Proficiency students in kindergarten through grade eight repeatedly requested art activities. Although I was teaching English using a whole language process (i.e., integrating reading, writing, listening, and speaking), I noticed that students were better able to internalize concepts and vocabulary through the use of visual art symbols and materials and process activities.

This article looks at the importance of nurturing creative/artistic giftedness in American Indian students as seen from the perspective of several prominent educators. Although solutions on how to deal with this issue may vary, these perspectives underscore the fact that creative/artistic expression has been ignored and suppressed by the educational system. Statements and research findings by Carrol, Richert, Torrance, and Wardle offer teachers direction in terms of identifying creative/artistically gifted minority students, provide alternative definitions, and present "wholistic" curriculum strategies based on brain structure.

Art education expert Karen L. Carroll confirmed my findings in a paper she presented at the 1990 National Association of Gifted Children's Conference held in Little Rock, Arkansas. According to her, the role of arts for all gifted and talented thinkers is to be able to move among symbol systems. Although children come to school with a pre-developed symbol system, it is supressed by the public educational system. To underscore this fact, Carroll pointed out that by the time children are in the second grade, "It's no longer okay to make pictures–it's 'babyish'–and by the time students are in the third grade, their ideas exceed their symbol system" (1990).

The research findings of prominent educators like E.S. Richert and E.P. Torrance support Carroll's position on art. Richert (1990) points out that the United States Government's definition of giftedness does include creativity, however, creativity is still given "lip service" by educators. Richert (1990) claims that not only is creativity not encouraged or respected by teachers or school systems, but when an IQ score of 130 is used as identification for entry into a gifted and talented program, 70% of the most highly creative students are excluded because of the inverse correlation between high IQ and creativity.

In his article titled "Creative Positives: A Nonpsychometric Approach," Torrance (1977) holds middle class America and education responsible for minimizing and suppressing emotional expression. Addressing the needs of culturally different gifted and talented students, he says:

To nourish creativity in minority students, Torrance (1977) developed a list of 18 nonpsychometric "creative positives," many of which relate directly to art production. The list includes the ability to express feelings and emotions; the ability to improvise with commonplace materials and objects; the ability in visual arts, such as drawing, painting, and sculpture; the fluency and flexibility in figural media; the skills in group activities; the responsiveness to concrete and kinesthetic; the originality of ideas in solving problems; and the persistence in solving problems.

Before discussing appropriate curricula, a definition of giftedness by R.S. Stoat (1990), author of the article "Understanding the Term Gifted–Process? Product? Performance?" may also provide practical clues for program development. Stoat views the three major groups of giftedness (i.e., gifted, talented, creative) as distinct and overlapping entities. He believes that better program planning will be assured by dividing the groups into numerous subcatogries such as Creative (product oriented), Gifted-Creative (product and process oriented), Creative-Talented (product/audience oriented), and Gifted-Creative-Talented (process-product-performance oriented). It is not the pattern of characteristics or traits that identifies and differentiates one group from another, but rather the pattern of orientation to thinking, learning, and producing. These various subcategories would eliminate inappropriate application of excellent programs.

Although educators have provided numerous models for educating a variety of gifted and talented learners, including the creative/artistic, the Integralive Education Model by Clark (1986), along with suggestions by Carroll (1990) and Wardle (1990), offers teachers of creative/artistic gifted and talented American Indians the most possibility because they show concern for the affective as well as the cognitive domain.

Although there are a number of models that deal with "wholistic" approaches, Clark's model (1986), based on brain functioning, may be the paradigm for helping teachers develop curriculum materials that will further enhance the creative/artistic potential in gifted and talented American Indian students. Clark (1986) proclaims that because her model is structured on the four main functions of the brain (thinking, sensing, feeling, and intuition), all types of gifts and talents can be nutured and enhanced. Components for the model include: the responsive learning environment, relaxation and tension reduction, movement and physical encoding, empowering language and behavior, choice and perceived control, complex and challenging cognitive activity, and intuition and integration.

Clark (1986, 1991) declares that students using her model can have both specialization and integration because it utilizes both hemispheres of the brain. A "wholistic" approach is the best way to "expand potential," Clark (1986) believes, since the left side of the brain is most responsible for linear thinking and the right hemisphere is responsible for spatial, holistic thinking. "The obvious need for integration is apparent even in the structure of the brain itself" (Clark, p. 62).

Individual curriculum activities suggested by Carroll (1990) share the need for integration as expressed by Clark (1986; 1991). For example, graphic functioning can provide students with symbolic systems that will help them move from one form to another; allowing them to think in all forms (Carroll, 1990). According to Carroll (1990) all students can profit from the use of symbol systems because "visual learners use graphic symbols as a source of strength, and the other 50% of students also benefit."

Carroll (1990) also proclaims that art– because it connects humans to their universal identity as well as their past, present, and future–relates to math and science; represents different ways of knowing the self, and addresses the students' need to understand themselves and their world. If students build their art language, Carroll (1990) adds, it becomes an alternative way of thinking about the world and giving it form; like other symbolic languages, it offers a way to hold "felt" meaning.

An article by Wardle (1990) observes that American Indian art, although traditionally ignored in favor of Western European art, is becoming more respected. It expresses graphic symbolism in four ways: symbols, color, use of natural materials, and use of "materials from which and techniques through which art is created" (p. 14). Expressing the potential value American Indian art has for all students, Wardle (1990) writes:

Like Carroll, Wardle underscored the importance of of students in terms of self, society/tribe, and global perspective.

In terms of the self, Wardle (1990) believes, "There is a richness of expression in the symbolism used by American Indian artists of both the past and the present that provides access to both meaning and feeling" (p. 14). In terms of global perspective he says, "Many of the symbols inherent in Native American art can be traced to the earliest civilizations of the western hemisphere, and are often very similar to symbols used in earlier societies such as Sumerian, Greek, Egyptian, and others" (p. 14).

Meaning can be conveyed in an effective way, Wardle (1990) claims, by showing ways that symbols are used in the different societies, or are depicted in different materials.

Rather than the neglect of creative/artistic methods of teaching, research findings indicate that an emphasis on the use of visual art symbols and activities will enhance the creative/artistic potential of gifted and talented students, and a curriculum that combines Clark's Integrative Education Model (1986) with ideas from Carroll (1990) and Wardle (1990) will immensely improve the academic success of all American Indian students. As a teacher, I have seen the beneficial affects creative/artistic expression has on children. By developing practices that identify and utilize creative/artistic strengths, more powerful integration of thought and feeling can occur, resulting in the development of multiple symbol systems (academic/tribal/personal). Creative/artistic expression grants students an opportunity to express their feelings and to affirm their identity, strengthening their self-esteem.

Carroll, K. (1990, November). What the visual arts can tell us about Giftedness. Paper presented at the National Association for Gifted Children Convention, Little Rock, AR.

Clark, B. (1991). Optimizing Learning by Unifying the Brain’s Potential. Paper presented at the Oklahoma Association for the Gifted, Creative and Talented and Oklahoma State Department of Education, Tulsa, OK.

Clark, B. (1986). The Integrative Education Model. In J. S. Renqulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented, (pp. 57-88). Connecticut: Creative Learning Press.

Maker, C. J. (1983). Quality education for gifted minority students, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 6(3), 140-153.

Richert, E.S. (1990, November). Maximum human potential Ethical, emotional and spiritual giftedness. Paper presented at the National Association for Gifted Children Convention, Little Rock, AR.

Richert, E.S. (1990, December). S. Richert Institute. Papers presented at the meeting for Oklahoma teachers of gifted students, Oklahoma City, OK.

Sloat, R.S. (1990). Understanding the term gifted: Process? Product? Product? The Gifted Child Today, 13(5), 36-40.

Torrance, E.P. (1977). Discovery and nurturance of giftedness in the culturally different. Reston, Virginia: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Wardle, B.L. (1990). Native American symbolism in the classroom. Art Education, 43(5), 13-24.